Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2326 <br /> <br />I." <br /> <br />"r' <br /> <br />2. It is possible that the benefit-cost ratios at both sites <br />will increase \!hen values for fish and wildlife, recreation, and <br />any other purposes are determined. <br /> <br />3. When indirect losses from production from in'igated and <br />other lands in the reservoir sites are evaluated, it is probable <br />that the benefit-cost ,:o.:;io could 1:>e affected. sli@1tly. <br /> <br />4. By incorporating Empire and. Riverside storage into main <br />channel storage at the Weld County site some existing annual OM&R <br />costs on these diversion and storage works ~Tould be saved. This <br />savings has not been evaluated in this analysis. However, it would <br />not be great enough to materially affect the comparison presented <br />in this report. <br /> <br />5. The Narrows site has physical advantages over vleld County. <br />The reservoir capacities set forth in this report utilize economic- <br />physical limits at Held County but do not at Narrows; therefore, <br />capacities could be increased at Narrows should fUture investigations <br />support need for greater storage capacity. <br /> <br />'" <br /> <br />6, As a supple rent to Bijou Creek Control, as indicated <br />in this report, a watershed improvement plan incorporating local <br />flood, erosion and. sediment control under Public Law 566 as admini- <br />stered by the Soil Conservation Service should be considered. <br /> <br />~~.. <br /> <br />. <br />" <br /> <br />f"-. <br /> <br />18 <br />